Allahabad High Court

AMIT KASHYAPversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 4 May 2026
Bench: JAI PRAKASH TIWARI

Holding

The applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

Summary

The Allahabad High Court considered a bail application filed by Amit Kashyap, who was arrested in a case involving offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant claimed innocence, arguing that his involvement was limited to assisting an informant in a government employment scheme and that no concrete evidence linked him to the alleged crimes. The State opposed bail but did not contest the earlier bail orders granted to co‑accused in the same case. The Court observed that the role ascribed to the applicant was vague, there was no substantive evidence against him, and he had already been in custody for about five months with no prospect of a speedy trial. Considering the lack of risk of evidence tampering or witness intimidation and the precedent of bail to co‑accused, the Court allowed the bail application subject to personal bond and sureties.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to an accused facing charges under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC in the absence of substantive evidence.
Whether the alleged vague role and lack of risk of tampering or witness intimidation justify bail.
Whether the grant of bail to co‑accused influences the decision to grant bail to the applicant.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471

Subjects

bail
Indian Penal Code
presumption of innocence
trial delay
surety
evidence tampering
witness intimidation

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44130 of 2025

Amit Kashyap
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Aftab Khan, Mohd Imran Khan
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 70
HON'BLE JAI PRAKASH TIWARI, J.

Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of the applicant is taken on
record.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, as well as learned A.G.A. and
perused the record.

The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 684 of 2024, under Sections 420,
467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Mathura,
during the pendency of the trial.

Learned counsel for applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent
and has been falsely implicated in the subject case. Learned counsel
submits that applicant has not committed the alleged crime and the name
of the applicant has been dragged in the subject case merely for the reason
that he has helped the informant to get benefit of Pradhan Mantri
Employment Generation Scheme against a petty amount, otherwise he has
no concerned at all. It is next submitted that only vague and general role
has been assigned to the applicant. At this stage, there is no credible
evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Prior to the present case,
the applicant have criminal history, wherein he has already been granted
bail by the court concerned vide order dated 9.2.2026 in Case No. 793 of
2023 and vide order dated 26.2.2026 in Bail Application No. 669 of 2026,
arising out of Case Crime No. 63 of 2023 and vide order dated 23.04.2026
passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 42268 of
BAIL No. 44130 of 2025
2

2025 (Amit Kashyap vs. State of U.P.). The applicant is in jail since
30.11.2025. Further submission is that similarly placed co-accused of the
applicant have already granted bail vide order(s) dated 18.09.2025 and
31.10.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 24143 of
23025 (Surendra Singh vs. State of U.P). and Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No. 25815 of 2025 (Anil Gola vs. State of U.P.), respectively.
Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that if the
applicant is released on bail, he would not misuse liberty of bail and is
ready to co-operate in the trial.

Learned A.G.A. for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and
submitted that there is no illegality in the bail rejection order, but does not
dispute the fact that similarly placed co-accused of the applicant have
already granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record this
Court prima facie finds that a vague and general role has been assigned to
the applicant. At this stage there is no substantive evidence to link the
applicant with the offence. Co-accused of the applicant have already
granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Further, the applicant
has remained confined for approximately five months and there is no
hope of early conclusion of trial, more so when no reasonable
apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant,
if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the
trial or intimidate the witness, without commenting on merits of the case,
I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on
bail. Bail Application is allowed.

Let the applicant-Amit Kashyap, involved in the aforesaid case crime
be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in
the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the
conditions that he:

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.
BAIL No. 44130 of 2025
3

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be
at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

(Jai Prakash Tiwari,J.)
May 5, 2026
Brijesh

Digitally signed by :-
BRIJESH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…